Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Nov 5, 2008 5:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Define Germany?
Germany, as it stands on a map. The UK, USA & other allies (even Canada manned up for this fight) took more of that land than the USSR.

Tell, I am well aware that 45 of 50 German Armies were on the Eastern Front. You talk about divisions, I know you don't even know the difference.
Never did I deny that Russia played a huge role. Though I don't know if the Soviet oppression was better than the German oppression.

Again, stop trying to out history me on this Bill Tell, you are not going to stump me. I have studied this quite extensively.

MY POINT, FOR THE LAST TIME...
We had to interfere or Britain would be speaking German.

This post was modified by kochman on 2008-11-05 13:05:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 6:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Germany, in 1941, consisted of a number of countries larger than what you refer to as "Germany on a map". You have to have a proper timeline.

Recall Munich? What country became part of Germany then? Recall the spring of 39? Add what country?

Where are these countries that are now PART of Germany?

The EAST.

Do the calculations and let me know...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: barongsong Date: Nov 5, 2008 8:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Sorry William I'm only responding to your post because it's the last one on this WW2 discussion. I think it's important to reference or revisit FDR's all important 1940 "Arsenal of Democracy" speech http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/7-2-188/188-21.htm to see where he at least thought we would end up without American involvement in Europe. Read the whole thing but I believe this part pretty much sums up FDR's opinion at least on the subject of the roll of the US in WW2.

Some of our people like to believe that wars in Europe and in Asia are
of no concern to us."But it is a matter of most vital concern to us that
European and Asiatic war-makers should not gain control of the oceans
which lead to this hemisphere.

One hundred and seventeen years ago the Monroe Doctrine was conceived by
our Government as a measure of defense in the face of a threat against
this hemisphere by an alliance in Continental Europe. Thereafter, we
stood on guard in the Atlantic, with the British as neighbors. There was
no treaty. There was no "Unwritten agreement."

And yet, there was the feeling, proven correct by history, that we as
neighbors could settle any dispute in peaceful fashion. The fact is that
during the whole of this time the Western Hemisphere has remained free
from aggression from Europe or from Asia.

Does anyone seriously believe that we need to fear attack anywhere in
the Americas while a free Britain remains our most powerful naval
neighbor in the Atlantic? Does anyone seriously believe, on the other
hand. That we could rest easy if the Axis powers were our neighbors
there? "

I think it pretty clearly disproves the notion that America came in to WW2 as some seem to perceive as "Saviors" of Europe. There is a reason we were called the Allies and without the contribution of all of them the world for better or worse would most likely be a lot different than it is now.
Cheers

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:39am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

"I think it pretty clearly disproves the notion that America came in to WW2 as some seem to perceive as "Saviors" of Europe. There is a reason we were called the Allies and without the contribution of all of them the world for better or worse would most likely be a lot different than it is now."


I only have time for a short response to that - but it says a lot.

Thank you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: barongsong Date: Nov 5, 2008 10:08am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

From a Massachusetts Minuteman- Ya Welcome ya lyme wanka, har har

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dilcurrie Date: Nov 5, 2008 10:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Thanks for the tights and the gum

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: barongsong Date: Nov 5, 2008 10:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

How'd you know those were mine. Oh crap I've been discovered.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Hey B--absolutely correct. I know FDR's many speeches and mtgs (I have read extensively on Yalta, Morocco, etc.)

Though I am caught up in a heated exchange, I never meant to discount our contribution. I do, though think that the russkies don't get nearly enough credit. All wars have critical turning points, and for the brits in WWII it was the BofB, and for the russkies, it was Stalingrad. Those happened before our major contributions, and I am not convinced the brits would have lost if we didn't come in...by the fall of 41 the major pieces were in place for what came in 42, and it was largely prior to our major contributions.

Nonetheless, it is debatable. Just not open and shut as KMan suggested at one point ("Rob speaking German").

Many have said WWII was won with their blood (russkies) and our money.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Mr. Tell, sure we can remain civil. I appreciate your comments, but I think you have the times a bit of, but I guess some of this is opinion.

The turning point on the Eastern Front was surely Stalingrad. Our contributions, by your words, really made an impact starting in 1943. Of course, Stalingrad ended early in 1943. However, the ability to capitalize further on that turning point was surely effected by the support of the USA.

I don't think the turning point for Britain was the BoB. I think it was El Alamein, fighting Rommel's Africa Corps and finally winning, leading to the drive which, shortly afterward backed up by the USA, led to the end for the 3rd Reich.

Either way, we kept England afloat before we even had a presence there, with our naval contributions, shipping, etc.

I have always found it odd that we would not have entered into WW2 without Japan attacking us. I find it even odder, and incredibly stupid, that Hitler then declared war on us! Thank goodness he made such mistakes, but man, what a dorkus. Seriously bad move.

Regarding the size of Germany... I know the Grossdeutschland was much larger... but I don't accept that as its official borders, as those were subverted and conquered lands. I consider it pre-1938 Germany, klienedeutschland. So that is just a slight difference. The Russians surely paid the highest price for the eventual victory, but I truly believe without the support of their allies they would have lost to Germany. They almost lost as it was! 1941, saved by General Winter.

Regarding the UK and speaking German... I don't think the Brits would have been conquered, but they would have lost via a peace treaty certainly not in their favor. I was kind of joking.

I can't agree with you saying that we won the Pacific alone. I just can't, that discredits too many dead allies, as a veteran, I cannot abide by that.

I do agree that the strategic bombing wasn't too helpful, and was rather cruel in fact. Inflicting death on the civilian population, something that we would NEVER do today. It is considered by many to be akin to murder. Imagine if we did such a campaign in Saddam's Iraq before rolling in... It didn't really effect production, as you noted, Speer had most factories moved underground! They were producing more fighting vehicles (tanks, planes, etc) in the end of the war than ever before, but had no fuel for them. We dropped the nukes on the Japanese with much more effect.



An aside...
Someone mentioned the strength of the British Navy... it is no longer strong. It is incredibly small these days actually, a shell of its former self.

That being said, I am glad the UK is our ally, faithful at that! We obviously have a lot in common. We just took their good system, tweaked it, and made it our own.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 12:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Well kid (I hope that is taken as a compliment! I really am old), I think we are more in agreement than we would have thought. Good on you for sticking with it.

Now we just have a good old debate, and from your comments, I see you have a solid grasp on many important facts, so forgive my earlier rants...

Knowing you think of ElAla for the brits as the turning point (which is of course defensible; you're in good company with Churchill and others), I see your point. Clearly, by then we had supplied the brits with a great deal and they used it effectively in that campaign. I was going with Stalingrad as the defn aspect of the overall war in Europe, and using BofB for the "UK survives initial and primary risk of invasion" and so on.

Thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth with you and NC (likewise he and I had harsh exchanges at first but came to understand one another, I like to think, much better as a result).

Keep up the good work on the history. We may come to different conclusions, and can debate the hypotheticals (I'd love to see Rob's Germanic prose to be honest), but that is as any good students of history would have it.

Sorry about the election outcome, but hope you'll forgive me a small measure of optimism after so many disappointments of late.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Nov 5, 2008 3:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Likewise Tell.
I have to say, I am actually, and surprisingly pretty optimistic about the President Elect. Yesterday I would not have thought I would be, but it turns out I am.

As I said to someone at my site, the Repubs blew it. The repubs completely betrayed the trust of their constituency and I left the republican party. Doubling spending for example. Bush was awful, and I know we have all heard enough of how Bush was bad, but let me say, as a non-republican conservative (libertarian), one more thing about Bush. Bush, as the leader of the party and the country, should have vetoed all the pork and excessive spending. He never manned up, never showed leadership enough to do that. Spend spend spend.
Iraq was pretty lame too. Having been there, I can say some good things have come of it, such as the liberation of the Kurdish people (which I took part in personally). However, was it our job to liberate them? NO!!! And, it wasn't even the main reason for going! Just a beneficial by-product.

I have given Obama a personal clean slate, and hope that he will do what he campaigned on (mostly anyhow), because it was pretty centrist. As I am one of those drooling gun owners, I hope he doesn't change those laws, or all I will have left is my own drool.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 4:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

That's the spirit. You youngsters are the hope and the future, so keep at it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: barongsong Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: VOTE!

Sorry William I didn't mean this to seem like a criticism of your points but only as a reference for the roll we Americans played in WW2. If anything I think it backs up most of what you said in previous posts in some way.
Cheers

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 5, 2008 5:17am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: bizarro history lesson

Britain would have been annihilated without the lend lease act. Germany would have moved all their forces from the western front and continued their 10-1 kill ratios in the eastuntil the russians finally ran out of men, they almost ran out of bullets, again lend lease act.

Without the british naval forces, the german's access to oil would not have been cutoff, they would have not concentrated on synthetic oil and instead would have advanced their jet, rocket and other programs in those underground factories, churned out more tigers and panthers and mopped the russians up in few years at most.

If the war was dragged out a couple more years without us intervention, our airforce would not have been able to intervene later in the conflict against me-262, comets and other fighters and bombers under production.

The farfignewton factor was advanced at the time, more so than in the us. Where do you think the CIA and NASA came from? We snatched up the engineers and scientist before the russians could. soviets flew nazi knockoffs from spoils of war against us for years. The AK47 was based on the stg44. Our most popular heavy machine gun's feeding mechanism is an exact copy of the german mg44. The first migs are remarkebly similar in design to luftwaffe concept fighters. Swept wing jets, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, guided missiles. The UFO craze started from our testing captured axis aircraft and rockets.

If japan had not attacked us, we would have watched the holocaust from the sidelines and anti semites like henry ford would not have made all those tanks. Europe would be the third reich and the cold war would have had a different nemisis. If hitler had not been a meglomanical anti semite, einstein would not have left and the one slight miscalculation on the amount of critical mass needed for a nuke would not have been made and the german scientist who split the atom would have had the bomb and then what?

The fact is, we were the only power on earth capable of stopping he nazi juggernaut and the world owes us for stepping in, albeit 4 years too late for the jews, gypsies, homosexuals, slavs, handicapped and the millions of others who could have been saved by an anti isolationist stance. Neutrality and latant nazi sympathies cost the world many live and many years of strife.

I too am a world war two nut and even spent OCD time building 1/72 scale models and diaramas (hundreds of them) and amassed a great library of technical schematics, statistics and strategy books, images and sounds. The one thing that we had was resources, manufacturing and patriotism. Our weapons were inferior to the germans but superior to the japanese. We could out produce either with ease and we volunteered to fight suicide bombers and dictators who took away their people right to bear arms, speak freely and worship or not as they pleased.

We could learn a lot from that generation.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 6:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

NC--you really have to get the timeline right on the major battles. A good readable source is "No simple victory" by N Davies.

Davies calculates the "man-months" for the various components of WWII in Europe. Total for the Western Front = 16.5; total for the Eastern Front = 406!

Read it.

BofB was OVER before the major effects of our support had been felt. Just as KM, look up the TIMING of the shipments, $$, etc.

It was 43 before our major contributions to the russkies were felt. Again, there are many sources that show this.

Sure, we handled Japan on our own. Sure, it was a great war for us. Sure, the russkies (Stalin) are debatable as the worse of the dictatorial forces of the 20th century.

However, you, as Mr KM, simply haven't made an objective analysis of the sequence.

When you have done that, I'd love to talk more; you have the interest, but need a little objectivity IMHO.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Nov 5, 2008 7:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

"It was 43 before our major contributions to the russkies were felt. Again, there are many sources that show this."

1943... oh, you mean when the Russians started to win instead of lose?

Nor did we "defeat Japan on our own". Good grief. So, according to you, we played a negligible part in the European Theater, and a complete, victorious yet isolated part in the Pacific? No help from anyone... I bet the Brits didn't know that... nor the Australians... nor the Chinese... wow. We are just so great (for the Pacific, we kind of didn't do anything in the Atlantic according to you).


I am done arguing with you. I don't know why you are trying to argue that America didn't help much in Europe, nor why you completely distort the facts and misstate ideas, but whatever, revisionist history at its best! God Bless America, where we are free to rewrite the past to compliment our arguments more effectively.

I am done with this...

Go Obama! Remain true to your campaign promises.

This post was modified by kochman on 2008-11-05 15:50:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 8:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

OK, can we be civil? I am willing to try if you are.

Look up Midway.

Ask the brits and the aussies about the Coral Sea.

Game over for Japan.

My uncles served in the Pacific. Wounded twice (both). I have traveled to many of the battlefield sites. This is me "name dropping" or some such, but I am very interested in the topic. Trust me kid (I assume you are young, and I just happen to be old), I have over 300 books on WWI and WWII. I do this for a living.

I do not have an axe to grind. But for someone to say "UK would be speaking German" if not for us just doesn't have all the facts in the right order.

Sure, it's a possibility, BUT far from a certainty given the sequence of events prior to our major involvement.

Likewise, for someone to think we didn't single-handedly win the Pacific Theatre is just not in touch with the relative contributions of the major players.

China was a side show.

But, why the "we won Europe" but not "we won the Pacific?"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 5, 2008 7:57am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

Which promises? He changed his positions to centrist or comporomised on most of them to get elected, I just want the friggin money...

You are being a bit hard on the lone ranger. He means well even if he dresses funny.

loner.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 5, 2008 6:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

As long as the definition of the last word of the initials IMHO's last word is opinion than we are fine. And not calling me racist, warmongering and a neocon also helps facilitate rational conversation as well.

I never met davies, I have read shirer, janes and even time-life along with tons of stuff of mostly technical aspects of the machinery of war, some tactics and a bit of strategery from all sides of the conflict. I am pretty sure the strategic bombing of the usaf was the determining factor in the war in europe and without it, britain would have been forced to a treaty with the germans. No insult meant to the real william tell and his brethren. Eisenhower had two speaches written for delivery after D-Day, luckily we heard the better one.

I will check it out davies after I get my tax cut and buy some books, show me the money.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 7:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

Cool; sorry if I get a little heated there at times--that was directed moreso at Mr Km.

Strategic bombing: biggest failure of the war. Amazing it didn't do more. Germany's production rose in every yr til the russkies got close, closed off Rumania, etc.

But, you make a number of good pts. Germany had ALL the best generals, all the best NCOs, all the best equipment.

I just think that it is by far a certainty Rob would be speaking German if we hadn't have come in. Would have taken the russkies longer, but he had called it quits with the UK, and looked east, which was his biggest mistake.

I think that the brits would have held on, and it just would've taken the russkies longer, or Germany would have just held its ground and negotiated after 10 yrs with all sides. After Churchill departed (hypothetical), maybe Germany would have expanded and done in the brits, who knows. All speculation.

I just think that too many here in the states don't appreciate the huge contribution of the russkies (their foot soldiers, nobody else), and the fact that the BofB was a huge success for the brits, and stopped the Germans, at the time, from coming further west, prior to our, no doubt, huge contribution materially speaking...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 5, 2008 7:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

That is true about the production, but as for moral it was devastating. I don't think the brits would have been invaded, I think they would have ran out of a will to fight and made peace, and a rather hard to trust one at that considering the other treaties hitler signed.

The britons are a hardy folk who mangaged to spread the english language and culture to every continent (usually by brute force) and were even able to hold off the might of the roman empire who eventually built a wall across the island to keep the kilted golfers from pillaging their wares from the north.

Thank god ( and that is from a german atheist) that hitler did attack russia. If he hadn't they would have been next but with a much more sustainable and technologically advanced wermacht and luftwaffe.

The battle of britain was a surprise and a slap in the face to ghoering who flew with the red baron, von richtoven who ironically recieved a hero's funeral from the allies in world war one because fighter pilots were like rock stars and were mutially respected by enemies.

No one doubts the contribution of the soviet peasantry, although a surprising number of ukraines and slavs defected and joined the ss because they had to choose a lesser of two evils. There is a pretty accurate account of stalingrad in that "enemy at the gates" depiction of the russian soldiers some without rifles were sent in squads into the german lines with their own machine guns to keep them pushing forward.

Some cool stuff that from that movie from a trusted source:

http://www.archive.org/details/EnemyAtT2001

It shows defectors being shot for trying to escape the straffing, great flick about yuri the sniper who would take out "yuba" any day.

Stalin's brutality was complete and he killed far more than hitler before, during and after the war. Purging his own generals on paranoid whims, airbrushing people out of pictures and other orwellian insanity.

Technically england already speaks a form of german already but I think they would still be speaking english regardless of what happened. I am distantly related to william I by the way and I have a bit of nostalgia for the isles myself, so I might be biased but I don't think they would have been successfully invaded, by a uniformed military anyway.

They were building the 4 engine amerika jet bomber, submarine launched missiles and other stuff that if they were let to develope would have caused us major problems on the east coast and by extension the west coast via the empire of the rising sun.

Operation market garden is a lesser know battle and the germans were never routed from their scandinavian holdings and northern italy was a dead end in the initial road inland into europe. And D-Day if not for the total seizure of power and micro management of ground forces by hitler could have been repelled by the panzer divisions that were not allowed to attack for 12 houes while hitler nodded out on drugs. Our misinformation campaign gave us the most effective element of surprise in history at that time.

Tom cruise luckily jumped up and down on eva brauns couch and killed hitler and blondie with niacin capsules and a copy of dianetics. John travolta, as vinnie barbarino, single handled strung up mussilini with converse sneaker shoe laces from a basketball net on a schoolyard in the bronx.

Scientology will save us from socialism.

Get clear. Call an auditor and read the owner's manual for the human mind and some quasi ideological science fiction.

God save the queen.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

Hey NC--one interesting point, re "morale", everyone thought strat bombing would really devastate the morale, even if it didn't impact production, but the afterwar studies tended to show it didn't do enough of either (ie, lower prod or lower morale).

In fact, some argued that the "solidification" aspect was having an opposite effect. Just as the brits really pulled together during the blitz, so to did the germans/japanese. Think of all the firebombing of Japan, and the people were all the more willing to fight on, even moreso because of their fears of us, propaganda, etc., and then it took two ABombs to change their minds...we never got close to doing as much to Germany, so it's not clear that their morale was being driven down by strat bombing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffNoiseCollector Date: Nov 5, 2008 9:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Do you know Davies?

A little known fact is that we killed more in the fire bombing of dresdin and berling than we did with the a bombs, they were just more impressive looking on a "per shot" basis. Good think the japanese thought we had more or that would have been a far bigger blood bath than anything before, every man woman and child with pitchforks on the beach and hiding behind every corner with a drive you alluded to in your post.

We did, in my opinion, demoralize the german civilians and sent a message strong enough to the high command that prompted them to realize their losing position and seek a seperate piece with the west. The people of berlin were clearly tired of the war and the propaganda telling them they were winning while they stood in piles of rubble.

If it were not for the insane and unfocused mania of hitler and his imaginery divisions, delusions of grandeur and dwindling pool of children and old men (which did a startling job of delaying russian armor from taking berlin much earlier with their panzerfausts) the war would have been much different. The military always had an uneasy alliance with the nazi party and made several attempts to kill hitler and work out a piece. From hess's little known flight to england and the back channel comminiques, the writing was on the wall for them but they were balls deep at that point.

I think we should all dress up and recreate the entire war like the civil war re-enactors. I'll be deadheadmontgomery and you can be dessertfox, get your uniform on and meet me in downtown SF in 3 hours. They'll dig it... actually they might...